Now I saw it and it was VERY Kubrickian...the only reason everyone is up in arms about it is because Senor Spielbergo finally flopped. It was good, but his fans don't want to see Kubrick movies. I don't know of one of his films the did very well (Kubrick) but most were good films, at the very least they were visiually stunning.

I'm waiting for someone to come in here ranting about how great and challenging AI was as a film, how intelligent it was, and all that other bullshiat people have been saying since it came out. AI didn't make the money industry analysts predicted it would because its got terrible word of mouth, because its not a very good film.

MrMe: You know how this movie had a sort of cold feel to it? Kubrick would have made ice as thick as that which froze the planet at the end of the movie. Kubrick didn't know shiat about love, and that's what this movie was supposed to be about.

And people really *don't* want to see movies that challenge them. Otherwise the term "art flick" wouldn't have the negative, marginalized connotation it does. Independant film would be the stuff breaking box-office records, not crap like Jurassic Park.

AI's flopping because it really doesn't give people what they want. There's little violence and fewer boobies. Notice how we get a lead character whose a male lover robot, but we never get any good shots of a female lover robot?

Yes, the movie was very Kubrickian -- that's one of the things that turned me off. I absolutely HATED 2001: A Space Odyssey simply because he ruined a good book by filling the movie with idiotic and meaningless shots! The book is simply amazing but the movie bored the ever-loving christ out of me.

Visually stunning, yes. I will admit that I absolutely loved Spartacus and Dr. Strangelove and some of the shots in A.I. took my breath away. I've attempted to watch the others, but I simply cannot. There is more to a movie than visuals -- that's something Kubrick seemed to ignore.

A.I. had some AWESOME visuals, but it was about 3 hours of my life that I have lost forever and can never get back. If it had ended like 30-40 minutes before it actually did, I would have walked away semi-satisfied. Instead, the ending was almost EXACTLY like 2001, which I make my feelings about earlier.

And By the Way...this isn't the first Spielberg movie to flop. Anyone one remember 1941?

However, saddest of all, how much you wanna bet that this movie gets a nod for best picture and best director (and probably best soundtrack, though, in truth, it deserves it -- John Williams did an awesome job).

Thegrue: wtf are you talking about? How about Eyes Wide Shut for a Kubrick love story? AI isn't about love anyway - the last third of the movie is a bunch of cheeseball crap that Speilberg tacked onto a film that otherwise maintained a sense of Kubrick-esq cold detachment.

I heard rumours years ago that Kubrick had been periodically (every six months or something) filming a kid over a period of several years. He was going to use this footage as a "growth" sequence of somekind - but this project sounds quite a bit different than AI as we know it.

Kubrick and Spielberg actually spoke for years about making AI. Kubrick had it in his head for a long time but realized he couldn't do it justice himself. Then he saw "ET" and said, "That's the guy I want to do my movie."

Senor Spielbergo has had a couple flops. 1941, is generally considered to be a giant piece of crap, Amistad 'underperformed.' Hook is TERRIBLE.Bashing on Hollywood for being stupid and holding up AI as some kind of genius film is so bizare to me. AI had just about the most holywood ending of any film I've ever seen, something totally out of nowhere that just ruined all the GOOD stuff that had come before it.I don't think I'm stupid or bitter. Memento was a smart flick, why don't we talk about that one for a bit?

Thegrue:And people really *don't* want to see movies that challenge them. Otherwise the term "art flick" wouldn't have the negative, marginalized connotation it does. Independant film would be the stuff breaking box-office records, not crap like Jurassic Park.

We want to go to a movie to be entertained, so sue us! A.I. did NOT entertain us (or at least me and the other two people I went with) -- it bored the living hell out of most people simply because it wasn't very good. Movies that make us think do well in the box office so don't give me that crap. As for your independant films, they would succeed if anybody would simply promote it. Big movies like Jurassic Park and Star Wars have a HUGE promotion built into them and are shown on thousands of theaters nation wide while independant films do not get the same promotion and tend to be shown on a handfull of screens. And, independant films do recieve success, if they are good storylines and entertain the public (ala Clerks).

Foreign flicks fail because people hate "reading" (subtitles) (which, in my opinion is a pretty stupid reason not to watch a movie).

TheGrue: All I'm saying is Kubrick's got his own take on love, just like any other theme he works with. FMJ isn't your average war flick, just as The Shining doesn't fall into the Hollywood horror mold. EWS is a love story...about farking.

Hook was a GREAT FREAKIN' MOVIE! I still don't understand why most of the public pans it. It had action, adventure, and even comedy. And come on! Dustin Hoffman as Hook? Damn he was good! Besides, it was more of a young adult/kids movie. It also had a damn good sound track.

As for your independant films, they would succeed if anybody would simply promote it.

So the public is a buncha monkeys, then, taking what's spoon-fed to them? Put it within an arm's reach and that's what they grab? "Ungh. Saw a commercial for it. I'll go see that one." Kind of like the movies they go to see: explosions are easy, intelligent dialogue and deep characters are difficult.

And there's nothing wrong with being entertained or wanting to be entertained. But I think box office records probably show that more people choose to be entertained by gimmicky escapist fantasy than engaging, intelligent film.

Sorry, give me the dubbing on foreign films. I watched "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" both undubbed and dubbed. I definitely missed visual details of the movie as I kept my eyes peeled on the subtitles. It is a distraction that can be dealt with but it does lessen the appeal of the film for me. Tried watching "The Kingdom" on IFC last night...watching a 5 hour long movie in its original Danish w/ English subtitles is like listening to a friggin train wreck.

AI, in my opinion, is misunderstood. The first time I saw it I disliked it quite a bit. Hated the tacked on ending, etc. I jumped into some discussion boards and starting sharing opinions and the more I talked about it and read about it the more I understood it. I saw it again and liked it much more. It is flawed, but still a great movie.

I find it funny that everyone is getting pissed off at Spielberg for "throwing in" his sappy ending and the blue fairy. If people would research at all they would find that those plot elements were ALL Kubrick. Kubrick fought with the writer of the short story for 10 years to keep the blue fairy in.

This movie was not at all what I expected, which was why I didn't like it in the first place. But upon reflection and multiple viewing, the reasoning behind the plot, the ending, etc, fall into place quite nicely.

I didn't say Amistad wasnt any good, I just said it underperfomred :) I never saw it, it came out when I was working at a video store and I rented it like 15 times but never watched it, just like Swingers and like 10 other movies I can't remember at the momment.

I have questions about the plot of Memento too, but I think that was the point :)

jeez! everybody thought that this movie was so comfusing!! ugh, am I the only one that liked it and didnt think it was too comfusing to understand? im no braniac, hell no, but well, i dont know what else to say...

I thought the acting in AI was great, but Spielberg DID ruin the movie. He tried to make it cute, it wasn't that kind of movie. If I had walked out of the theatere when he finally met the Blue Fairy, then it would have been a much better movie. The Robo Teddy did kick ass.

My take on this movie is this. As I said, its misunderstood. I think that in time people will accept it more. Spielberg knew that this movie was going to get the type of reaction that it did, but in Kubrick's honor he kept to the plot the way he wanted it.

Most of Kubrick's movies have performed at the box office with mediocre results...I'm glad they were conceived without ticket sales as the bottom line. And with $80M in tickets now in US, it'll surely pick up another $2M before it goes all the way out here, and easily another $20-$50 Worldwide, along with $40M or so on video. Hardly a bomb.

Uhm, yeah, if the ending was "cute" then I'm a farking android. Did anybody else get the sense that maybe that was the most cynical ending possible? That the only time we get some real bonafide honest two-way love in the movie, is after ALL THE farkING HUMANS ARE GONE? Yeah, real cute, a robot kid who's spent 2000 years looking for love and it took the magic of an alien race to make a brief illusion of it possible. He never gets to be a real boy. He gets a genetically reconstructed mother who's a little disoriented from being back from the dead who lets a comment about love slip through. She'll be dead tomorrow. And he will be alone. All farking alone. Yeah. Sure. Cheers my cynical ass right up.

anyways.

Regarding thinking films doing well at the box office, I submit:

http://us.imdb.com/Charts/usatopmovies

Crocodile Dundee is #55. My faith in humanity just made like France and surrendered.

Thegrue: You're misrepresnting what I said. People do not go to movies because they saw a commercial, like you claim we "monkies" do. What I simply said is that Independant Films are not promoted...which means...the public doesn't know it exists! It's like an independant band -- they don't get noticed until they start getting radio time, or, in other words, they PROMOTE their music on the radio so other people can hear it. This the same concept.

How anyone bash such a wholesome movie as Hook is beyond me. Rufio owned, and now he freestyle raps in Sprite commercials. All because of people like you who didn't give Hook the respect it deserved.

I watched Memento the first time after drinking way too much Vodka. After about 10 minutes of trying to concentrate on backwards plot I had to leave the theater and puke. I went and threw up in the stall, and pissing at the urinal was none other than George Lucas himself. After I finished puking some guy who pissed next to him had an arguement with his friend about how that wasn't Lucas and it was Speilberg. Idiots.

Anyway, I went back into the theater and passed out. So a few weeks later I watched it again and loved it. Great farkin movie.

And the people with quesions about the Memento plot, let's discuss it. I was confused at first but I think I have a pretty good grasp of the plot.

Thegrue: You totally, completely, utterly, missed the point of the movie. The fact that you think those were aliens at the end of the movie pretty much tells me that it is a total waste of time to argue about this movie with you because you didn't even understand what was going on on-screen, much less the underlying theme behind it all.

The funny thing is, you also came very close to discovering the whole theme of the movie, but trampled all over it instead. ;)

"Summer moviegoers don't seem to want movies that require them to work," said analyst Martin Grove of the Hollywood Reporter.

Oh gimme a freakin' break. If anything, AI is insulting to one's intelligence. Poor characters, pointless dialogue, a ending both strained and sappy. And David never does anything, things always happen to him. He's a rather boring character.

I liked the teddy bear, though. Too bad he wasn't given any good lines.